Motivation in Groups

Motivation in Groups

Introduction: The Motivation to study Motivation

Organizations can be seen as pools of humans, whose collective output represents the organization's output delivering the organizational goal(s). Therefore, there exists a continuous search for ways and means to attract, develop, retain and motivate talent for continuous improvement in performance. In this context, the study of motivation assumes great importance, and at individual level represents the most widely researched human behaviour.

As a large part of organizational functioning is in groups, the identification and nurturing of group motivation are crucial. This paper attempts to review the available literature on group motivation and attempts to propose a few hypotheses which could help improve the present understanding of group motivational behaviours.

Literature review

Being a well addressed topic in the past, literature covers a wide horizon of motivation, however, majority of it is focused

on individual human beings. Abundant research shows that the behaviour of people is different as individuals and in groups. Modern organizations can no longer afford to depend on individual brilliance, and highly competitive environment calls for building of teams in organizations which represent the wide variety of knowledge, skills and abilities which can steer it to success.

The most widely discussed and critiqued human behaviour theory has been the one propounded by Sigmund Freud (1856-1939). He stated that the unconscious is the source of our motivation. He vehemently claimed that the unconscious was a vast majority of the mind compared to preconscious and conscious, and sex was the primary motivator, albeit largely unconsciously, for human actions. A large number of theorists since Freud have challenged and suggested alternative models of human motivational behaviour. The most prominent amongst them are discussed below.

Alfred Adler (1870-1937) propounded that the aggression drive or desire to strive for perfection in individuals is a strong motivator for them to achieve envisioned objectives. He perceived motivation as a force to move towards the future, which suggests that our future goals, ideals and purposes can be influential motivators (this phenomenon is called teleology).

Abraham Maslow (1908-1970) borrowed the idea of self actualisation from the famous book "The Organism" (Kurt Goldstein, 1934). While working with monkeys he noticed that some needs take precedence over others which led to his famous hierarchy of needs, in the order - the physiological needs, the safety and security needs, the love and belonging needs, the esteem needs, (these four are called the deficit needs), and finally, the self-actualization needs. The five types of needs are represented in a table below:

S. No. Class of need Example

1 Physiological needs Oxygen, food, water, rest, sleep, sex etc.

2 Safety and security needs Safe environment, circumstances, stability etc.

3 Love and belonging needs Friends, spouse, children, et al.

4 Esteem needs Respect from others, and self-respect.

5 Self-actualization needs To be all that you can be.

Maslow talks about the levels of needs in terms of homeostasis, a temperature measuring device in furnaces, which switches the need on and off as and when the need arises or is satisfied. Further, he calls these needs as 'instinctoid' (instinct like), with the first four being survival needs classifying the first four levels of needs as deficit needs (D needs) and, the last level differently as growth motivation, being needs (B-needs), and self-actualization. In the last phase of his life, he propounded the transpersonal psychology as the fourth force (the earlier three forces being: first - Freudian, second - Behaviorism, and third - his own humanism) in psychology which investigated meditation, higher levels of consciousness etc. The last level of need, in short, represents a continuous desire to be all that you can be.

Donald Snygg (1904-1967) and Arthur W. Combs (1912-1999) argued that all behaviour is determined by the phenomenal field, in other words the subjective reality. Unfortunately, their theory is outshined by those propounded by Carl Rogers (1902-1987), and that of George Kelley (1905-1967) propounding constructive alternativism, though neither is very different. These theories stress the basic need of all individuals to preserve and enhance the phenomenal self. Rogers, simplistically, held that there is an inner desire in all people to develop their potential